Were the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Justified?

[Ken-1122]

Yes they were.

How else were we going to scare the Japanese into surrendering?

I find it odd that even though the fire bombing of Tokyo killed much more people than Hiroshima or Nagasaki, yet nobody questions weather or not that was justified because the bombs were not nuclear. which is worse, 1 nuclear bomb or 1000 conventional bombs assuming the firepower is the same?

K

 

[keith99]

I find it odd that even though the fire bombing of Tokyo killed much more people than Hiroshima or Nagasaki, yet nobody questions weather or not that was justified because the bombs were not nuclear. which is worse, 1 nuclear bomb or 1000 conventional bombs assuming the firepower is the same?

K

1000 conventional bombs. As dropping 20000 (not a typo) conventional bombs had no chance of bringing things to an end.

A reasonably well known, but often ignored, fact is that both atomic bombs were dropped from single bombers. No bomber wing. Just a weather plane before and a recon plane after.

It was vital that it was very clear that it was a single bomb, or at most the load of a single plane that had done the damage. If the issue was just the destruction then sending a full wing would have minimized the chance of the plane with the bomb being shot down.

 

[Ken-1122]

1000 conventional bombs. As dropping 20000 (not a typo) conventional bombs had no chance of bringing things to an end.

A reasonably well known, but often ignored, fact is that both atomic bombs were dropped from single bombers. No bomber wing. Just a weather plane before and a recon plane after.

It was vital that it was very clear that it was a single bomb, or at most the load of a single plane that had done the damage. If the issue was just the destruction then sending a full wing would have minimized the chance of the plane with the bomb being shot down.

So why do you suppose people have a problem with what we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but nobody has a problem with what we did in Tokyo?

K

 

[Hentenza]

Yes they were.

How else were we going to scare the Japanese into surrendering?

No reason to scare them to surrendering. The Japanese had very little military hardware left by this time and the Russians were going to declare war on the Japanese on Aug. 8 (2 days after the bomb was dropped) which would have been devastating to the Japanese and probably would have prompted their surrender. In my opinion Truman dropped the bomb, against strong military advice not to use the bomb, to send a message to the Russians and to protect US present and future Asian markets. If the Russians would have entered the war and become part of the Pacific alliance then they would have received a piece of the plunder which is something that the US could not have because of the open door policy. The US was looking for Asian markets and had been very active during the war acquiring them. The Russians, having a closed market, would have been counter intuitive to US foreign policies.

So, no, the bombs were not necessary.

 

[Ken-1122]

No reason to scare them to surrendering. The Japanese had very little military hardware left by this time and the Russians were going to declare war on the Japanese on Aug. 8 (2 days after the bomb was dropped) which would have been devastating to the Japanese and probably would have prompted their surrender. In my opinion Truman dropped the bomb, against strong military advice not to use the bomb, to send a message to the Russians and to protect US present and future Asian markets. If the Russians would have entered the war and become part of the Pacific alliance then they would have received a piece of the plunder which is something that the US could not have because of the open door policy. The US was looking for Asian markets and had been very active during the war acquiring them. The Russians, having a closed market, would have been counter intuitive to US foreign policies.

So, no, the bombs were not necessary.

At the time it was estimated an excessive amount of American casualties had the USA invaded Tokyo which was the alternative. As far as finding out after the war the lack of hardware they actually had, "arm chair quarterbacking" is much easier after the fact.

K

 

[Hentenza]

At the time it was estimated an excessive amount of American casualties had the USA invaded Tokyo which was the alternative. As far as finding out after the war the lack of hardware they actually had, "arm chair quarterbacking" is much easier after the fact.

K

The war planners developing plans for Asian were predicting as early as the spring of 1945 that the Japanese would surrender after the summer. Their casualty assessment in a full blown invasion of Japan would have yielded at its worse (if the USSR did not enter the war) less than 25,000 dead and wounded which is much less than the million US casualties that Truman used as justification for the bomb. The same report also estimated the war readiness of Japan after loosing most of the islands near Japan to be extremely low. During the summer of 1945, after the war in mainland Europe had ended, the US engaged in back-channel talks with Japan through the Soviets where Japan was negotiating terms of surrender. Their major condition was to retain Hirojito and the imperial system. There were sticky points that were still being negotiated at the time the bomb was dropped.

In another report on June 1945, military planners determined that the earliest date in which the US would be ready to attack Japan was November 1, 1945 but a full invasion could not happen until January 1, 1946. So, why drop the bomb on August 6?

The USSR had already committed during Yalta in February 1945 to enter the war in the Pacific three months after the war in mainline Europe ended which would have been August 8th.

The estimates that Truman gave the public contradicted his own military planners and was used as justification for the bomb for decades. In fact, in the 1970's the Smithsonian tried to do an exhibition on the Enola Gay and the historical script on the placard that accompanied the exhibition was criticized because it read that an alternative explanation was that the bomb was dropped to send a message to the Russians. The exhibition was canceled.

Ken, all you have to do is find the extant documents in the US archives. All are there and the conclusion is inescapable. The US was fully aware of Japan's military condition and was also advised quite strongly be the US military that the bomb was not necessary.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

The Japanese military machine also was killing 250,000 people or so a month in various occupied places. That's a statistic that often gets overlooked.

 

[Hentenza]

The Japanese military machine also was killing 250,000 people or so a month in various occupied places. That's a statistic that often gets overlooked.

The military occupation by Japan of Manchuria and Indochina was indeed brutal but I have not seen numbers no where near what you are suggesting. Secondly, after operation detachment and while operation iceberg was still in full bloom, the US began the full blown bombardment of Japan. Most of the Japanese troops in the occupied territories were removed to Japan to prepare for the invasion. By June of 1945, Japan had lost the Philippines, all of the islands in the Coral Sea, the kumendang was attacking Manchuria and in the verge of victory, General Giap was overtaking the Japanese in Vietnam, all of their navy was gone and 80% of their merchant marine was gone, most of their air force was gone, 1/3 of their industrial capability was gone and had no way to replenish raw materials including oil, over 60 major cities were bombed during the end of June and July, etc. etc. etc.

Even if Japan was killing millions in their occupied territories, which they were, by June of 1945 their hold on occupied territories was tenuous at best. Truman was advised by virtually every military man not to use the bomb because it would escalate animosity and create grave post-war problems (which it did). All of the scientists that worked on the Manhattan project and, even some that did not, were against dropping the bomb. Japan was virtually defeated in June of 1945 and most likely would have surrendered on their own once Russia declared war on Japan on August 8th.

 

[WithinSpirit]

They were justified. The Japanese had this attitude of never surrendering. More of them and more of us would have died if we didn't drop those bombs

 

[lismore]

The Japanese started it. The Allies finished it.

 

[Steve Petersen]

If you look at the numbers, more Japanese died from firebombing of their cities than from the nukes.